Rosa Parks Transit Center Getting Her Canopy

[GREENTROIT]

I still think they would have been much better off to spend a few extra bucks and build an actual hard roof for this structure. I really like the look of these canopies now, but they are in essence a temporary structure within a permanent one. In not too many years of sitting out in the weather and being exposed to constant bus exhaust they will look dirty and worn. In order to keep the place looking decent the city will have to spring for maintenance, cleaning, and eventually replacement canopies.

Given the city's track record with such things I'm not betting on that happening, so some years from now we will have another shabby embarrassing eyesore on our hands. Something that could have been prevented by spending a bit more now. That is, if the canopy structure even survives our windy, snowy weather, which, lets face it, is never going to be too kind to soft structures of this type.

The canopies aren't some cheap canvas. They are usually either Teflon coated fiberglass, a type of PVC [[vinyl coated polyester), or a sort of Polyethylene mesh. So don't expect them to whither away in a few years. These alternatives to traditional roofs and shading structures are really gaining popularity, and considering the contract was for $5.5M I expect they will do it right.

[detmich]

The canopies aren't some cheap canvas. They are usually either Teflon coated fiberglass, a type of PVC [[vinyl coated polyester), or a sort of Polyethylene mesh. So don't expect them to whither away in a few years. These alternatives to traditional roofs and shading structures are really gaining popularity, and considering the contract was for $5.5M I expect they will do it right.

Ahhh, you haven't had your spirit broken yet. Don't worry, you will. And, that will look like complete crap in under 4 years.

[EastsideAl]

considering the contract was for $5.5M I expect they will do it right.

Been around Detroit long, friend?

[professorscott]

How old are the similar canopies at the airport in Denver? Ten, twelve years, something like that? I saw them two years ago and they look fine. And there's plenty of traffic in and around an airport.

[DetroitPlanner]

That's a snow relief hole.

I am not talking about that! It looks like ripped rags on a stick compared to what was there yesterday! I'm thinking someone went cheap on the fabric or the stitching.

[detmich]

How old are the similar canopies at the airport in Denver? Ten, twelve years, something like that? I saw them two years ago and they look fine. And there's plenty of traffic in and around an airport.

It's also in Denver. Wrong D city.

[Detroitnerd]

I think you guys are getting near what concerns me most about these type of projects. They aren't really permanent, in any sense of the word. You get all the construction, all the economic activity, and you haven't produced anything that's going to last for more than a few years.

Other cities get bus stations made of brick and mortar. Hell, for that matter, other cities get permanent, fixed-route transportation that requires an investment and demonstrates a commitment to it. What do we get? Experimental, unusual plans that, whether by design or by disaster, continually fail. Why do something that has a proven track record, when you can spend slightly less to do something that may or may not succeed?

[gnome]

Just drove by, ...the canopy is in shreds. Torn. Ripped. In pieces.

Like panties after a frat party.

oops, back to drawing board and time to add to the overcharges.

[detmich]

Just drove by, ...the canopy is in shreds. Torn. Ripped. In pieces.

Like panties after a frat party.

oops, back to drawing board and time to add to the overcharges.

Wow, generalize much?
What time machine did you just crawl out of?

[archytech]

The station canopy is not that unique or temporal of a concept. The dever airport has a similar structure. It perfect because it will be light and airy not dark like a large roof. tearing from installation is not new either although I do wonder how bad a patch they will make for it. That is what you have contruction contingencies for...$hit happens.

[OriginalG313]

Just drove by, ...the canopy is in shreds. Torn. Ripped. In pieces.

Like panties after a frat party.

oops, back to drawing board and time to add to the overcharges.

Yep, I drove by about an hour ago and saw the same thing.

[EastsideAl]

I'm guessing that the Denver Airport people have money to spend on maintaining their canopy structure, and that they do it regularly and don't cheap out. Detroit has no recent track record of doing any of these things.

[rsa.313]

I think you guys are getting near what concerns me most about these type of projects. They aren't really permanent, in any sense of the word. You get all the construction, all the economic activity, and you haven't produced anything that's going to last for more than a few years.

Other cities get bus stations made of brick and mortar. Hell, for that matter, other cities get permanent, fixed-route transportation that requires an investment and demonstrates a commitment to it. What do we get? Experimental, unusual plans that, whether by design or by disaster, continually fail. Why do something that has a proven track record, when you can spend slightly less to do something that may or may not succeed?

with all due respect, you might want to know about what you're talking about before being so critical. this method of construction was invented in 1896. famous examples include:

canada place, vancouver, 1985
national gymnasium, tokyo, 1964
olympiapark, munich, 1972
millenium dome, london, 2000
denver international airport, 1994
and our very own silverdome utilizes the same materials, but is of different construction.

this type of roofing is very durable and is meant to last 30 years, the same amount of time conventional roofing is designed for. in fact, i believe most manufacturers of this material gaurantee it for 30 years.

as far as it being torn to shreds last night, we did have quite a storm. if it wasn't secured properly, then it could've easily torn. it's more than likely a installation fault, rather than a material fault.

[Detroitnerd]

Haha. Look at all the defenders of this type of construction having a fit because one person doesn't like it and thinks it's a poor hedge between serious, durable building and slapdash, experimental horseshit.

[[Oh, yes, this sort of construction provides lots of light. Presumably through the shredded canopy.)

I love this line:

“with all due respect, you might want to know about what you're talking about before being so critical. this method of construction was invented in 1896. famous examples include:�

Oh, yes, it's been tried before. That's why you are able to produce a handful of examples of it being used in the past. [[snicker) Indeed, I might want to take a course or two at the New School before I am so “critical.�

Guess what, wonkus? Nobody needs a degree to opine whether it is [[a) ugly [[b) cheap or [[c) slapdash. We people on the street look at it and laugh. You, encumbered with your precious education, have sole rights to seriously opine. Oh, yes. We wouldn't want a real bus station like, say Port Authority in New York, because it's "dark" because of its real "roof".

Face it: The real problem here is that the people designing this crap never imagine themselves seriously using it for a second. The people planning, building and -- in the end -- demolishing these sorts of things have a parking spot reserved for them, and will never ride the “loser cruiser.� That’s why it’s poorly designed, in my humble opinion.

But my opinion is not important. I’m no expert. I’m just the sucker who’s paying for a building that is already falling apart! And so I defer to the experts …

[DetroitPlanner]

I'm guessing that the Denver Airport people have money to spend on maintaining their canopy structure, and that they do it regularly and don't cheap out. Detroit has no recent track record of doing any of these things.

Chene Park has such a canopy and is City owned. Its probably been up there for 20 years or so. Therefore a track record does exist for the City to do these things.

[rsa.313]

wow, somebody has their panties in a bunch.

detractors of the tensile structure have stated that it is:

a.) experimental
b.) temporary
c.) will not last very long

my counterpoints were:

a.) it has been around for over 100 years
b.) many of these structures have been in continued use for many years
c.) the lifespan of the materials with their gaurantee and warantee

i also just pointed out the most famous examples. there are hundred of other structures around the world that utilize this method. also note that i did not mention anything about the aesthetics of the terminal. and i also in fact agreed with the fact that it was probably not prepared in the right manner. but i guess you get more attention responding in an emotional way with speculations, unfounded hypothesis, and making fun of someone for being too smart?

[Detroitnerd]

My panties? In a bunch? Awww, that's sweet of you to be so concerned about my equanimity. Guess what, though? I'm just fine.

Your point A is that since somebody has been making buildings like this for a long time, they aren't experimental. Maybe so. But I gotta say, this is not your run-of-the-mill structure is it? The percentage of completed structures of this construction must be infinitesimal. You argue that it's been perfected? Geez, judging by the way it's going up right now, it sure looks like an experiment gone wrong. But the point is that they didn't go for a conventional solution; they chose something that's not even a "building." To my way of thinking, this is an experiment. And I don't doubt for a second that somebody, somewhere, described it as "bold" or "outside the box" in some design meeting.

Anyway, you're just arguing semantics, because my original point is that this building represents the middle ground between brick-and-mortar investment that will last generations [[you know, how they *used* to do things) and a quick fix that will look impressive but won't really last, which brings us to your point B, that the structure isn't "temporary." All I can say is, you really are a true believer. You believe that Detroit has any plans for that "tensile structure" to last 30 years? Haha. I am amused by this. If they really wanted a building to last 30 years, they would have built a "building," not a "structure."

As for point C, that it will not last very long. Umm, it's already not lasting very long. The first figure budgeted for the structure was $15 million. By the time they broke ground, the figure was $18.3 million. I wonder how much more it will cost! It is six months behind schedule and already falling apart! I must say I admire your optimism.

As for making fun of you, why not? You are ignoring one of the key points. This is not an academic debate. We are *paying* for this, through state and federal grants. It looks like crap and it smells like a boondoggle. I'm also irritated by the disingenuousness of the designers over at Parsons Brinckerhoff, who call it an "enclosed public square," even though it's totally walled-off from the city. You'd think people based in New York would know better.

Anyway, nice try to play the emotion card. Usually, in a courtly debate, it's a good tactic to accuse people of being overly emotional. [[Although that sort of head-patting, "with all due respect" or teasing about "panties in a bunch" is supposed to elicit an emotional reaction, n'est pas? Tsk, tsk. Poor form.) But here's why your accusations about emotional responses doesn't fit: I live and work in Detroit, and I see an obnoxious, ugly structure that's freakin' falling apart before it even opens and I'm supposed to not get emotional about that? I'm supposed to mull over the history of these structures, try to believe that this represents something other than graft, idiocy or lunacy? [[Ah, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. *lights pipe* Ah, yes, let's see. I may have to take a course in that before I have a right to an opinion.) Well, that may be asking too much of us little people who have to pay for it all...

[rsa.313]

My panties? In a bunch? Awww, that's sweet of you to be so concerned about my equanimity. Guess what, though? I'm just fine.

Your point A is that since somebody has been making buildings like this for a long time, they aren't experimental. Maybe so. But I gotta say, this is not your run-of-the-mill structure is it? The percentage of completed structures of this construction must be infinitesimal. You argue that it's been perfected? Geez, judging by the way it's going up right now, it sure looks like an experiment gone wrong. But the point is that they didn't go for a conventional solution; they chose something that's not even a "building." To my way of thinking, this is an experiment. And I don't doubt for a second that somebody, somewhere, described it as "bold" or "outside the box" in some design meeting.

Anyway, you're just arguing semantics, because my original point is that this building represents the middle ground between brick-and-mortar investment that will last generations [[you know, how they *used* to do things) and a quick fix that will look impressive but won't really last, which brings us to your point B, that the structure isn't "temporary." All I can say is, you really are a true believer. You believe that Detroit has any plans for that "tensile structure" to last 30 years? Haha. I am amused by this. If they really wanted a building to last 30 years, they would have built a "building," not a "structure."

As for point C, that it will not last very long. Umm, it's already not lasting very long. The first figure budgeted for the structure was $15 million. By the time they broke ground, the figure was $18.3 million. I wonder how much more it will cost! It is six months behind schedule and already falling apart! I must say I admire your optimism.

As for making fun of you, why not? You are ignoring one of the key points. This is not an academic debate. We are *paying* for this, through state and federal grants. It looks like crap and it smells like a boondoggle. I'm also irritated by the disingenuousness of the designers over at Parsons Brinckerhoff, who call it an "enclosed public square," even though it's totally walled-off from the city. You'd think people based in New York would know better.

Anyway, nice try to play the emotion card. Usually, in a courtly debate, it's a good tactic to accuse people of being overly emotional. [[Although that sort of head-patting, "with all due respect" or teasing about "panties in a bunch" is supposed to elicit an emotional reaction, n'est pas? Tsk, tsk. Poor form.) But here's why your accusations about emotional responses doesn't fit: I live and work in Detroit, and I see an obnoxious, ugly structure that's freakin' falling apart before it even opens and I'm supposed to not get emotional about that? I'm supposed to mull over the history of these structures, try to believe that this represents something other than graft, idiocy or lunacy? [[Ah, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. *lights pipe* Ah, yes, let's see. I may have to take a course in that before I have a right to an opinion.) Well, that may be asking too much of us little people who have to pay for it all...

yes, that's exactly my point. let's look at the definition of experimental:

1 a: test, trial <make another experiment of his suspicion — Shakespeare> b: a tentative procedure or policy c: an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law

this method has already been tested and they know the outcomes. unusual is not the same as experimental. and i never argued that it was perfected. not unusual is not the same as perfected. this is not semantics, this is using the correct definition to describe a point you're trying to get across.

and i think you're completely missing the point. the tensile structure is a roof structure. even if this was built with brick and mortar walls with a "more conventional" roof, that would still require replacing in 30 years. modern roof construction is only built to last 30 years. [[but, besides the point: the actual terminal itself is in a "conventional brick and mortar building with a conventional roof." the only part that the tensile structure is the outdoor bus platforms.)

and, for the third time, i've stated that this is more than likely not being assembled very well. if something fails due to negelct before it's completed, that is no reflection on it's longevity. if a brick wall collapsed during construction due to error, would you say that the bricks are not very durable?

and i said "with all due respect" because i meant it. i didn't want it to come off like apersonal attack and wanted to argue the points. i also stated that your response was emotional because it didn't address any of the points and revolved around your opinions and feelings about the aesthetics and motives of the designers and planner. there is no alterior motive.

but, as long as you brought it up, in a "courtly debate" it is also a good "tactic" to bury your points in so much other information and faulty jumps of logic that the other person gets confused or lost. another "tactic" is to contiually talk about the other person's character so that distracts them from the weakness of your argument. and as long as you're playing the resident card, i too live and work in the city.

[detmich]

New York has a very famous, very sturdy bus terminal designed by
Pier Luigi Nervi


Also, I see your point. All these places you listed
[quote]
canada place, vancouver, 1985
national gymnasium, tokyo, 1964
olympiapark, munich, 1972
millenium dome, london, 2000
denver international airport, 1994[\quote]

are famous for their traditional civic lack of maintenance. Especially the Germans and Japanese, they let everything go to pot.

[Detroitnerd]

I think you're working on "experimental" too hard. I have already discarded it, even though, as I said, it looks like a failed experiment right now.

My point is that they could have built something traditional, but they decided to try something unusual. Frankly, I believe we've seen waaay too much unusual design in downtown Detroit. I look at this and it reminds me of the monkey bars and the toonerville trolley. It reminds me of the awnings they'd put in areas to protect shoppers that quickly turned into prostitute hangouts. At what point do we say that perhaps a conventional roof over the bus bays would have done the job?

The point that roofs need replacing every 30 years isn't a bad one, except that conventional roofs are part of an edifice. And edifices represent permanence. I look at this stuff and I recall every other "striking" or "creative" project that's been foisted on this city and I think, "Well, there's something that's totally doomed." You see, cumulative experience teaches us things ...

I guess I'm not supposed to blame the designers or the people who approved the design that it's over-budget, behind schedule and falling apart right now. Might this not have happened had we gone with a design that our local builders were more familiar with? No, we had to try something "fancy." Sigh ...

I'm not playing a residency card on you. I understand now. You actually believe this project is a worthy one, and therefore don't care that your money is being spent on it. I, on the other hand, am irritated, and would like to see [[a) a real commitment to transit, [[b) a permanent structure if we must have one, [[c) and, personally, to see all the people who designed this ugly hybrid are soon standing in the cheese line.

As for talking around and confusing people, I don't think I could do that any more than the reality of the situation. This whole thing is confusing. It's a public square! It's a private area with restricted access! It's permanent! It's going to have to be replaced in 30 years! It's a sound design! It's falling apart! It's bold and innovative! It's a time-tested construction technique! I mean, come on ... it's enough to give you whiplash without my ravings.

[Johnlodge]

DN, please... It has taken two years to build this little hut and awning. We don't have two decades to wait for them to build something structurally sound.

[jcole]

And edifices represent permanence. I look at this stuff and I recall every other "striking" or "creative" project that's been foisted on this city and I think, "Well, there's something that's totally doomed." You see, cumulative experience teaches us things ...

Like the monkey bars of Washington Blvd?

[Detroitnerd]

That Nervi terminal isn't too bad. [[I'm actually surprised that I've driven that sliver of I-95 so often and never noticed it. I guess you can't see it as you drive through.) But what's the relevance to this discussion? It seems to be made of concrete, not some high-tech fabric.

[Detroitnerd]

DN, please... It has taken two years to build this little hut and awning. We don't have two decades to wait for them to build something structurally sound.

Oh, man, John Lodge. That is too funny.

[detmich]

That Nervi terminal isn't too bad. [[I'm actually surprised that I've driven that sliver of I-95 so often and never noticed it. I guess you can't see it as you drive through.) But what's the relevance to this discussion? It seems to be made of concrete, not some high-tech fabric.

Exactly, it won't rip in the wind. It won't collapse on the waiting buses and passengers when it fills with snow in the winter, but it will still be standing another 40 years from now.